Office of the Provost

International Education Programming Team

Dr. Larry Gould, Chair
Dr. Margaret Butcher
Dr. Norman Caulfield
Dr. Chris Crawford
Dr. Tim Crowley
Ms. Cindy Elliott
Dr. Avi Kempinski
Ms. Dianna Koerner
Ms. Marnie Kohl
Dr. Mohsen Modarres
Dr. Andrew Novotorov
Ms. Casey Rackaway
Dr. Tom Schafer
Dr. Paul Siegrist
Ms. Carol Solko-Olliff
Dr. Josephine Squires
Mr. Jian Sun
Dr. Dosse Toulaboe
Dr. Steven Trout
Mr. Michael Tweed
Mr. Jerry Wilson
Dr. Mohamed Zainuba

II. Background

As we begin the 21st century, increasing globalization presents new challenges and opportunities for institutions of higher education. In a concise and vivid statement, Sarah M. Pickert (1992: 61) describes the implications of this profound dynamic for institutional change. It is her contention that, “Americans increasingly are aware that they live, work, and think in a global marketplace---an awareness that propels them to demand more emphasis in educational programs on international topics. The changes that render the nations of the world ever more interdependent require colleges to work harder to produce graduates familiar with other cultures and their histories, languages and institutions. “People coming out of American higher education must be more cognizant of the ties that bind the regions of the world. They must be willing to consider perspectives held by people whose cultures differ from their own. They also must be competent to conduct education, business, and governmental activities in an international environment and prepared to make personal and public policy decisions as responsible citizens of an international society. “To meet these and related challenges, colleges and universities in the U.S. are incorporating goals for international education into campuswide strategic plans and enriching academic disciplines with a comparative and international view. Institutions are revising curricula to alert all students to the languages and cultures of other countries, while creating faculty development opportunities that stress an international outlook.”

Fort Hays State University (FHSU) responded to this imperative by establishing a goal in its institutional strategic plan which implores faculty, staff and students “to develop and implement a comprehensive set of projects, programs and activities which will internationalize the campus and curricula.” It is this goal, which serves as the foundation for the work of this steering committee.

III. Responsibilities and Roles of the Committee

It is the primary responsibility of this steering committee to identify and help implement an array of strategies and initiatives designed to cultivate traditional and virtual learning environments that place a priority on global education. This programming should be consistent with FHSU’s mission and values as a regional, comprehensive liberal and applied arts university and contribute to the goals and implementation of a mission-centered but market smart institutional strategy. A secondary responsibility of the Steering Committee is the care and continuous improvement of the university’s international programming. As a collective “steering mechanism,” the committee must assume at least four critically important roles to carry out this secondary responsibility: 1) Advocate - To encourage departments, faculty and staff to develop on- and off-campus coursework, programs, activities and arrangements essential to the building of a globalized educational environment. 2) Facilitator - To develop policies, procedures, and “good practices” which will advance and promote the effective and efficient delivery of international programming. 3) Ombudsman - To help mediate differences and resolve conflict in the university learning community related to the implementation, content, quality and delivery of the programming. 4) Reformer - To make modifications and changes in programming to meet the goals of quality, accessibility and affordability.

IV. Charge to the Committee

In the exercise of its responsibilities and roles, the committee is charged with the following tasks and considerations:

1) Conduct a stocktaking exercise and environmental scan to determine the current level of international programming;

2) Use the information derived from the stocktaking and scanning efforts to identify stakeholder needs and gaps in programming; 3) Identify strategies and activities to establish and promote international education in traditional and virtual learning environments by considering at a minimum:
Enhanced recruitment of international students as a part of the on-campus population and the implications for student services and academic programming. Increased delivery of off-campus coursework, programs and learning experiences for international students in their countries of origin.

Increased cooperative relationships with higher education institutions in other countries for teaching, research and service opportunities.

Study and internship abroad opportunities arranged by various kinds of organizations not necessarily institutions of higher education.

Increased availability of student and faculty exchanges arranged by various organizations not necessarily institutions of higher education (e.g. Fulbright Program).

Possible arrangements with international companies that send students to summer programs for food and hotel services and similar work opportunities.

Enhanced English as a Second Language (ESL) programming.

Clarify the purpose and uses of the current language curriculum with the goal of possible modifications (e.g. workplace Spanish, immersion programming, etc.).

Enhanced campus-based activities (e.g. Model UN, seminars, Docking Institute forums, modern language tables, debate issues, study clubs, international food fairs, etc.).

Increased outreach programming (e.g. public forums on international issues, volunteer literacy programs in SW Kansas, cooperation with elementary and secondary schools, community connections such as Hays in the World/the World in Hays projects, collaboration with other communities in the FHSU service area on international initiatives such as agriculture, etc.).

Explore new curricular opportunities at both the undergraduate and graduate levels to include majors, minors, fields/areas of emphasis in existing programs, certificates and infusion or across the curriculum strategies. In addition, there may be a need for multicultural/international coursework and less structured learning experiences like internships and non-credit programming.

These efforts should take advantage of cooperation among the academic colleges, departments and special support units such as the library and Virtual College. They may also bring into play new technologies and approaches such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS).

Explore potential partnerships with the military and community colleges to develop new international arrangements and cooperative learning experiences.

Evaluate the potential of using blocks of time to accommodate special international initiatives. Innovative summer session coursework, internships and study abroad may be a better fit for FHSU students.

Address grant opportunities for support of international programming in a more systematic way.

Consider involvement and participation in state, national and international organizations, consortia, foundations, and businesses that deal with international education (e.g. Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration based on NAFTA, the Atlantic Council, Institute of International Education, Kellogg Foundation, etc.).

Explore scholarship and financial assistance support to encourage student participation in international programming.

Evaluate administrative structures that help or hinder international programming on campus and in the Regents System.

Provide a recommendation on how international programming ought to be administered, funded and managed at FHSU keeping in mind limited resources and personnel.

Explore the concept of a clearinghouse for the exchange of information on international programming, arrangements and opportunities to include grantwriting activities.

4) Evaluate the faculty reward and recognition system relative to promotion of international programming;

5) Establish learning outcomes and measurable goals to evaluate progress and a basis for improvement initiatives;

6) Design a format and timetable for submitting an annual report on international programming progress and performance; and

7) Submit a report in the form of a cost-effective strategic/action plan with programming priorities, goals, objectives and outcome measures by April 30, 2002 to the Provost. This may also include a possible AQIP goal for the next three-year cycle of quality improvement initiatives (2003-2004). The plan should include marketing strategies as necessary.

V. Administration

This committee reports to and is administered by the Office of the Provost.